Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 59 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3014
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 11:01:41 -
[1111] - Quote
X Mayce wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:again it will have powerful mining drones why is that soooo different than a laser Ye I know, I am just not convinced by this yet.
For Crist's sake man just tell me why it's different
Citadel worm hole tax
|
X Mayce
Manson Family Advent of Fate
16
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 11:07:47 -
[1112] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:X Mayce wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:again it will have powerful mining drones why is that soooo different than a laser Ye I know, I am just not convinced by this yet. For Crist's sake man just tell me why it's different
I did already, I said I would want to see the rorqual as an actual capital miner loose from the boosting.
Manson Family
Advent of Fate
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3014
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 11:10:19 -
[1113] - Quote
X Mayce wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:X Mayce wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:again it will have powerful mining drones why is that soooo different than a laser Ye I know, I am just not convinced by this yet. For Crist's sake man just tell me why it's different I did already, I said I would want to see the rorqual as an actual capital miner loose from the boosting.
No you still have not explained why boosting while using mining drones was less active than not boosting and using a laser
Citadel worm hole tax
|
X Mayce
Manson Family Advent of Fate
16
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 13:48:13 -
[1114] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:X Mayce wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:X Mayce wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:again it will have powerful mining drones why is that soooo different than a laser Ye I know, I am just not convinced by this yet. For Crist's sake man just tell me why it's different I did already, I said I would want to see the rorqual as an actual capital miner loose from the boosting. No you still have not explained why boosting while using mining drones was less active than not boosting and using a laser
In the current setup the Rorqual is a requirement to be max efficient as a fleet -> not optional in sense of efficiency
if the boosts were uncoupled from the rorqual, the rorqual would just be an escalation tool to gather even more ore, because you go capital. -> that's what i would like more
If that going capital is by a superweapon to cut a belt or a big ore cluster, or you mine with capital lasers or whatever i dont care, but this you require the capital in the belt at all times, I dunno what to think about this.
It's not more active playstyle it's a different approach in general I assume.
Manson Family
Advent of Fate
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3014
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 13:58:33 -
[1115] - Quote
we are not talking about currently but the change that will give it highly efficient mining drones only it can use <-this right here i want to know why THIS is differant from giving it the laser you proposed earlier. with this it not only mines at a capital rate but also boosts why is that worse than it mining at a capital rate but unable to boost?
again if its boosting or if its just mining for max efficiency you need it
if it adds 100m3 to a fleet per hour from its boosts or if it adds 100m3 to the fleet from mining the effect is the same.
the only difference is if boosting the potential of the rorq is limitless where if its mining it will have a hard cap. so really your way is just a nerf
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Saffoo
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 15:52:14 -
[1116] - Quote
Hi All
Well I've chewed this over a lot and come to a few conclusions about the changes to boosting, i'm probably wanting my cake and to eat it but here goes :)
Firstly I agree that OGB does indeed give an advantage to a squad or fleet of ships when engaging another group of ships etc and boosting should indeed be a more active, hands on in fleet roles
However there has never been any reason why both parties cant have an OGB and indeed everyone does it but i digress
So a big old yes please to on grid boosting? Well hold up for a minute there is a few flies in the ointment!
Many people have stated concerns over range, lag, TiDi, fitting changes et all and these are all good and valid concerns and time will tell how the changes pan out but let's dig a bit deeper
We are all agreed that these changes break a lot of long established game play some for the good and some for (hopefully) the better but i am concerned that CCP is attempting to extract more real money from our wallets
Let's take mining boosts as an example, though this applies to most other areas of boosting, currently you can have an orca boosting a squad of miners who are happily mining several different belts of roids, shooting rats, hauling ore and generally doing their thing and scratching a living from mining
Post changes they can no longer do this, this game play has been completely broken and they are forced to mine in a group, in 1 belt in a nice big bait ball
Yay you might say more miners to shoot, well look at it this way the only other option these poor miners have is to sub another account and train up another orca (or porpoise, dang this ship better haul some ore) pilot if they want to not be mining over themselves or overworking the orca pilots
OK like i said this is just an example of how these changes break current game play and throw in the need for additional accounts i'm sure this applies to other areas of fleet boosting and the need for additional accounts and hence income
I dont have the answers to make life fairier just that these changes have a decidedly fishy undercurrent about them
OK time to put my tinfoil hat back on :) |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1271
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 16:46:54 -
[1117] - Quote
if ccp reduced link strength to a sensible level, they would be optional and everything would be great |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3018
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 16:48:32 -
[1118] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:if ccp reduced link strength to a sensible level, they would be optional and everything would be great
i don't think you understand eve mentality where every % counts
Citadel worm hole tax
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1271
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 16:53:17 -
[1119] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:if ccp reduced link strength to a sensible level, they would be optional and everything would be great i don't think you understand eve mentality where every % counts
if they were optional, you'd be thinking about what ship to put that % of pilots in instead, and if you have enough people in fleet for links to be a worthwhile investment of people. after these changes it always will be because they're still broken strong |
Iowa Banshee
Fenrir Vangard
105
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 17:59:58 -
[1120] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote:With apologies to CASMA (more about that below) my initial reaction to these changes is very positive. Last night a Fed Navy Comet came into my system so I undocked a Comet of my own while looking forward to some 1v1 action. As I was calculating a warp-in however a Tengu entered system. I sighed and docked up, not wanting to fight against a boosted opponent. Turns out the Tengu was just a coincidental neutral but by then it was too late. With on-grid command burts, at least I would have known exactly when or when not the opponent was receiving boosts. It wouldn't preclude the opponent's booster warping in after getting a scram and deploying the Command Burst, but that's at least a little bit more tolerable.
As a close-range brawler I also like the nerf this deals to bs kiting comps. The booster would need to be at least as fast as the kiting ships in order to continue to provide boosts, and it would also require the kiting ships to stick together to remain in range of the effect.
Additionally, as somebody who trained some leadership skills mostly to pass boosts other fleetmates were providing, I suppose I could extract those skills and sell the Injectors for ISK - but I would much prefer to reallocate those SP elsewhere in my character, without having to deal with the Injectors providing much less than 500k SP for my character. CCP, please consider a skill refund with the deployment of these changes.
Finally, for CASMA - I do not know how you operate as despite being in CCG I am only peripherally aware of you guys. But CCG does make use of Orca and Rorqual boosts a lot in our nullsec home, so these changes will effect us as well. I have no idea what the miners in CCG will do about the mining boosts changes, but you guys are totally welcome to come down and join us where at least you'll have some sort of PvP backup for protection. (But AFK mining, of course, is not really an option and we cannot help with that.) The ice and roids are quite valuable and should be more than enough compensation for the inevitable ship losses. Getting on some nice killmails in the meantime is another perk of nullsec mining.
(Pardon if a dupe - got a "we were ganked" message first posting.)
So no change here ..... When the grid boosts are implemented when a Navy Comet and a Tengu fly in - you will still choose not to fight them |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3022
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 18:09:52 -
[1121] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:if ccp reduced link strength to a sensible level, they would be optional and everything would be great i don't think you understand eve mentality where every % counts if they were optional, you'd be thinking about what ship to put that % of pilots in instead, and if you have enough people in fleet for links to be a worthwhile investment of people. after these changes it always will be because they're still broken strong
... that's exactly what it will be after the change because it will be harder to have an alt do it hell they are optional now we almost never use them (we poor basters cant plex no alt) and tbh they don't give that much of an advantage. They are just used so much now because there is no reason not to use them
Citadel worm hole tax
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1271
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 18:24:05 -
[1122] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:if ccp reduced link strength to a sensible level, they would be optional and everything would be great i don't think you understand eve mentality where every % counts if they were optional, you'd be thinking about what ship to put that % of pilots in instead, and if you have enough people in fleet for links to be a worthwhile investment of people. after these changes it always will be because they're still broken strong ... that's exactly what it will be after the change because it will be harder to have an alt do it hell they are optional now we almost never use them (we poor basters cant plex no alt) and tbh they don't give that much of an advantage. They are just used so much now because there is no reason not to use them
you will be fielding a ship that can potentially get killed, which is a huge step up. but it'll still the same kind of suboptimal gameplay as logistics, where you basically need to bring it all the time, and all fights will revolve around it |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3023
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 18:28:13 -
[1123] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:if ccp reduced link strength to a sensible level, they would be optional and everything would be great i don't think you understand eve mentality where every % counts if they were optional, you'd be thinking about what ship to put that % of pilots in instead, and if you have enough people in fleet for links to be a worthwhile investment of people. after these changes it always will be because they're still broken strong ... that's exactly what it will be after the change because it will be harder to have an alt do it hell they are optional now we almost never use them (we poor basters cant plex no alt) and tbh they don't give that much of an advantage. They are just used so much now because there is no reason not to use them you will be fielding a ship that can potentially get killed, which is a huge step up. but it'll still the same kind of suboptimal gameplay as logistics, where you basically need to bring it all the time, and all fights will revolve around it see thats another misconception you don't NEED logistics there are plenty of ways to make your enemies choice to invest pilots into logi hurt them.
only time you need logistics is in large fights but you can't balance large fights w/o breaking small ones (one reason i'm glad ccp put small-mid gang game play above large)
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Apollo Outamon
Galactic Exploration and Mining Inc The Ditanian Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 18:49:30 -
[1124] - Quote
I do not see where these changes are going to be helpful to industrialists in the long run. Yes the boosts will be better and the booster toon can now mine directly as well but, most booster toons are alts of miners anyway for the sole purpose of boosting the squad or fleet.
CCP stated that they listened to us players about wanting on grid boosting.... I do not know a single industrialist who would want such a thing. Putting a 2+ billion isk ship where it can be killed along with every miner that now has to mine next to it at risk of being 1 big bait ball. Not to mention that if a miner needs a specific type of ore for building ships that players use for ratting, defence of an area or PVP and there are none in the current belt they have to wait until the fleet moves to another belt to get it. The current mining boosting system works very well and should not be changed simply because PVPers want to be able to kill the mining booster ships and/or hot drop a group of miners all at once for the added killboard padding.
CCP says they are giving the boosting ships an increase in defence and the Rorqual a superweopon to counteract hot drops and roaming fleets coming to kill it. This will allow enough time for a friendly fleet to come to the rescue....PVP time again. Miners will most often still lose this one. the superweopon for protection last only so long and then if help isn't there or available.. POOF!
Most miners are vulnerable enough as it is and get killed often enough as it is. Why make them more of a target? Does CCP not realize that without the miners and builders the PVP part would suffer greatly? That most miners will not risk the boosting ships of any price tag at this point. The price of ore and minerals will sky rocket followed by the price of ships, modules and every other item in game? Players will stop playing the game. Miners will no longer mine. and PVPers who are the driving force behind these changes (i have no doubt) will be the ones to suffer the most in the end. How long until a 45 mil isk PVP ship becomes 145 mil isk? Or more?
Now let's get to the new boosting ship, the Porpoise. A ship that is cheap and able to provide mining boosts and that is quick enough to get out of harms way is an great idea. Right? Let's look at this. Ok so miners are not going to risk the big isk ships for boosting on grid we know this so let's make a ship that can do it and that is cheap and able to get out much quicker. At a far less boosting amount. Now this is like saying we know this change is going to upset just about every industrialist in the game because we know none of them wants these changes we are forcing on them so lets try to apease them some what with this alternative ship for boosting. Because CCP knows that no mining equals no pvp which equals no $$ for them.
I appologize for the length of this post but, as someone who mines, pvps, builds and explores in this game, i can not sit here and think gee this is a great idea when it is nothing but another way for pvp to make CCP $$.
As it stands it looks like when the miners stop mining or the influx of ore drops drastically will CCP stop and go "oops, we messed that one up" and fix it back to how it is now. PVP will suffer from lack of ore to make the ships that they use.
Think about the domino effect here people. Everything in this game is tied to everything else in one way or another. If miners suffer so does PVP. If enough miners quit, stop mining or aren't able to mine enough ore any longer due to lack of boosts you will see the effects rather quickly.
Just a thought.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3023
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 18:56:01 -
[1125] - Quote
Apollo Outamon wrote: the current boosting system has 0 risk and loads of reward. this is a good thing
your the reason indi pilots get a bad reputation
Citadel worm hole tax
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1271
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 20:39:20 -
[1126] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: see thats another misconception you don't NEED logistics there are plenty of ways to make your enemies choice to invest pilots into logi hurt them.
only time you need logistics is in large fights but you can't balance large fights w/o breaking small ones (one reason i'm glad ccp put small-mid gang game play above large)
it's awkward because this post is the opposite of the truth, but we're off-topic so I shouldn't be responding |
Gary Webb
The Walking Deads V. O. I. D.
24
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 21:56:56 -
[1127] - Quote
X Mayce wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:X Mayce wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:by more active i think they mean removing that rorqual sitting in the pos all day while its pilot is at work....
the new rorq only mining drones are not enough for you? I just dont get their idea of "active", the rorqual has to be in the belt, I am completly fine with that, but this be afk in the belt instead of the pos, what's this game design? xD in belt mining with drones is just as active as miners mining with lasers and much more active than not being in the same zip code as your PC i do like how you are one of the few who not only realizes they will still be used but even that ppl will still afk with them though. ye you are right, i guess i would just love to see the rorqual doing something different than the boosting. well mining is completly designed to be afk while doing it, except the hulks, where you shuffle ore around. To me the rorqual should be something like a dread, you bring it to maybe break big ore or to mine more than normal stuff (in relation to a dread who is a classcannon in regards of damage) but the current state, it's this stupid thing sitting there, hoping for times where it can finally shine. -> you need the rorqual for efficiency but again not for fun :/
I am all for the coming changes, I do have my reservations about the Rorq being put in the belt and I guess I would just like to see it having a reasonable chance of escape/defending itself. Sadly this seems to be another round of CCP pandering to the people who cry about not having enough easy high ISK killmails.
I guess more than anything I would like to see is the Rorqual being able to move while boosting. Get rid of this stupid siege mechanic for the industrial core. From what i can gather from the discussions I've read the mining yield will be more, yes, but as with the new carrier system they have increased the level of micromanaging necessary to significantly gimp productivity. The skiff, being my preferred mining vessel will now have two mining lasers and will fill its hold before it can jetcan, meaning now all the barges for long term mining ops will need to anchor a can or constantly warp out and back. The micromanaging necessary for a couple miners will not be so much but for those alliance supporting type entities who take out 10-20 alt fleets, it will become next to impossible.
So it seems to me that for all intents and purposes, the yield will remain roughly the same overall, only now you are risking a 2 billion isk ship, in the belt. So while at face value it may seem the risk vs. reward system is being implemented by saying we will be getting a huge boost to mining amount, but it will be offset by the added time in managing storage and transport. So for this to not be heavily biased in favor of miner ganks, there needs to be a reasonable expectation of egress or a really big boost to yield. time will tell |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3027
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 22:01:24 -
[1128] - Quote
they did make it so you do not need to siege the rorq and still get a significant boost over the orca but if you want to take on the extra risk you can siege and get even more.
-.- i have no sympathy if you alt management got harder. if thats what this change has done good one CCP
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Ray Mitar
Ganksters Inc Drake Ashigaru
120
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 22:33:13 -
[1129] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
i don't think you understand eve mentality where every % counts
if they were optional, you'd be thinking about what ship to put that % of pilots in instead, and if you have enough people in fleet for links to be a worthwhile investment of people. after these changes it always will be because they're still broken strong ... that's exactly what it will be after the change because it will be harder to have an alt do it hell they are optional now we almost never use them (we poor basters cant plex no alt) and tbh they don't give that much of an advantage. They are just used so much now because there is no reason not to use them you will be fielding a ship that can potentially get killed, which is a huge step up. but it'll still the same kind of suboptimal gameplay as logistics, where you basically need to bring it all the time, and all fights will revolve around it see thats another misconception you don't NEED logistics there are plenty of ways to make your enemies choice to invest pilots into logi hurt them. only time you need logistics is in large fights but you can't balance large fights w/o breaking small ones (one reason i'm glad ccp put small-mid gang game play above large) This is the perfect example of the myopic self centered blindness people can and often do develop when they think their game style is the only or best game style to play.
8 or 10 man fleets running Incursions certainly NEED logistics. But when all you think about is pvp you can become blind to the day to day reality other players face. Sometimes what you don't consider breaks the game for others. No logistics would certainly break the game for people flying Incursions.
Now go ahead and say you think Incursions are bad and you want them to go away. (aka you don't run incusions so you don't care about breaking it for those who do)
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3031
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 23:15:33 -
[1130] - Quote
... he said need it at all times. If anyone was blind to other Play styles it was him.
And I do run incursions i make most my isk that way and yes they are bad they are a risk free Isk faucet. The HS rewards should be cut in half
Citadel worm hole tax
|
|
Rick Wyatt
Massive Dynamic inc. Care Factor
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.07 13:52:44 -
[1131] - Quote
Everyone should be figuring out a way to congratulate CCP. In the vastness of all this open space they have managed to find a way to shove everyone into office cubicles limited by the range of boosters. They have successfully destroyed a hierarchical system in which far less experienced players can now have the same effect as someone who has been playing since the game started. Any advantage you had by being here a long time is pretty much dissipated in a big battle. They have taken something already very complicated and turned it into a big spreadsheet. If you're outside of the lines of the spreadsheet or if you have to go back to get another spreadsheet ship you are open for annihilation because you're not blanketed by the spreadsheet. If you are not in the right position you will not get the protection of the spreadsheet. Lastly they have created something so incomprehensibly complicated that I no longer even feel I can participate in combat and I've pretty much given up the idea of even trying. Mining will no longer be worth it to smaller groups who can't cover against even a 10 ship fleet or will become not worth it because people are going to be unwilling to risk losing major ships that boost. or you don't even have enough ships that boost because the 2 guys that boost are in a different time zone. On top of all of this they're going to throw in a herd of people even more newbie than I am to gaming. I pretty much figure that people are going to be leaving in droves and I agree with the person that said CCP is forcing people into a style of combat that one or two people like. I'm not looking forward to any of this. |
Rin Aiko
CVT IND
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.07 15:39:53 -
[1132] - Quote
Rick Wyatt wrote:Everyone should be figuring out a way to congratulate CCP. In the vastness of all this open space they have managed to find a way to shove everyone into office cubicles limited by the range of boosters. They have successfully destroyed a hierarchical system in which far less experienced players can now have the same effect as someone who has been playing since the game started. Any advantage you had by being here a long time is pretty much dissipated in a big battle. They have taken something already very complicated and turned it into a big spreadsheet. If you're outside of the lines of the spreadsheet or if you have to go back to get another spreadsheet ship you are open for annihilation because you're not blanketed by the spreadsheet. If you are not in the right position you will not get the protection of the spreadsheet. Lastly they have created something so incomprehensibly complicated that I no longer even feel I can participate in combat and I've pretty much given up the idea of even trying. Mining will no longer be worth it to smaller groups who can't cover against even a 10 ship fleet or will become not worth it because people are going to be unwilling to risk losing major ships that boost. or you don't even have enough ships that boost because the 2 guys that boost are in a different time zone. On top of all of this they're going to throw in a herd of people even more newbie than I am to gaming. I pretty much figure that people are going to be leaving in droves and I agree with the person that said CCP is forcing people into a style of combat that one or two people like. I'm not looking forward to any of this.
I wish boosts were removed altogether. Sad that folks feel that they can't participate in gameplay without them. |
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
156
|
Posted - 2016.09.07 21:02:27 -
[1133] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote: if they were optional, you'd be thinking about what ship to put that % of pilots in instead, and if you have enough people in fleet for links to be a worthwhile investment of people. after these changes it always will be because they're still broken strong
I know, right? If only there were ships that can fit links AND guns at the same time. Forcing those 4link t3's on grid with no tank or guns is totally a bad idea |
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1757
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 02:02:03 -
[1134] - Quote
Rin Aiko wrote:I wish boosts were removed altogether. Sad that folks feel that they can't participate in gameplay without them.
In wormhole warfare do to limited mass you can take through wormholes boosts are often the deciding factor when going balls deep into a fleet you know can bring reinforcements |
GROUND XERO
Rennfeuer Project.Mayhem.
4
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 06:56:07 -
[1135] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:GROUND XERO wrote:
4-5 no the fleet positioning/darting on and of grid/need for multiple boosters would not have been there in nearly the same way. if they just forced them on grid you could do what boosters do now when forced on grid. sit there look pretty make sure not to get out of RR range
If you are forced onto the grid it will need more than look pretty .... and even more if there are range limits ... the only thing more is to reload! You allready need 1x fleet booster + 1 for each wing so at leat 6 for a full fleet so i still don-Št see the increase of fun .... but i might be blind in this case!
Are you really this angry that fleet boosting is now a role that will require some attention?[/quote]
NOPE! .... but as i told several times before i smell another door that pushes the super blobb..... and harms the small to med scale fun ... ! I really like the fact that boosters are forced onto the grid and have a limited range! But present game mechanics like tidi will cause huge problems for boosters ( remind a cycling "gun-thinngy" which has to reload.... ) ... you might say ok every other Pilot has same issues at the same time but this is not true! If Titans , who allready have the most effective tidi weapon will get an extra effect for what ever it will buff the super blob even more ... or do i get it wrong?
And again cycling a single module is not really any kind of extra fun nor need of super soft skills to handle on field.... so i really see no imrpovement that seems better than just remove all kind of boosters on an active base ( maybe just give command ships of any kind a fixed bonus they are giving out, if used in the role of their fleet ....and if they are on field/ grid and in range .... so you can use these ships and not need to gimp em :-)) |
Diana Lillywhite
The Stars in heaven Yulai Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 09:38:22 -
[1136] - Quote
My calc
Rorqual Max Range Bonus: Ship Bonus: 50% + Mining Director 50% + Leadership 50% + Wing Command 25% + Fleet Command 20% + T2 Indust Core 200% = 395%
Max Range: 15km + 15km * 395% = 5940km |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
740
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 09:45:28 -
[1137] - Quote
15 x 4 = 6000 ? |
Sentenced 1989
198
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 10:08:08 -
[1138] - Quote
Diana Lillywhite wrote:My calc
Rorqual Max Range Bonus: Ship Bonus: 50% + Mining Director 50% + Leadership 50% + Wing Command 25% + Fleet Command 20% + T2 Indust Core 200% = 395%
Max Range: 15km + 15km * 395% = 5940km
you mean 15km + 50% of 15km (7.5km) + 50% of 15km (7.5km) + 50% of 15km (7.5km) + 25% of 15km (3.75km) + 200% of 15km (30km) = 71,25 km
also, a note: ore you mine yourself is not free.
The Incursion Guild
Epic Arc Guide
|
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
302
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 11:09:46 -
[1139] - Quote
always boosting offensive. never defensive... its hard enough defending mining fleets as it is. putting them at more risk. why should people mine anymore...
killing the game slowly but surly
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3049
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 11:12:53 -
[1140] - Quote
how is giving you a free 5min time out making it harder for you to get a def fleet
Citadel worm hole tax
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 59 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |